4 ms·
This feels like mostly a PR piece to me. And reports seem conflicting. Google doesn't seem to say what they did beyond that they "developed an algorithmic sol
by dcdan 16y ago
This feels like mostly a PR piece to me. And reports seem conflicting.
Google doesn't seem to say what they did beyond that they "developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience."
Danny Sullivan claims they are "Using Online Merchant Reviews As Ranking Signal" (http://searchengineland.com/google-now-using-online-merchant-reviews-as-ranking-signal-57445 http://searchengineland.com/google-now-using-online-merchant...).
Techcrunch claims Google "compiled a list of hundreds of merchants (including DecorMyEyes) that provided “bad user experience” and algorithmically forced them lower" (http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/01/googl/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/01/googl/).
edit: typo
- lawrence 16y agoHopefully this is PR spin. If it's not, it's pretty disturbing that allegations of one mean merchant can cause an algo change. How many businesses will be collateral damage of this update? How many fake negative review campaigns with this spawn? If this is a real algo change, it was done in an extraordinarily hasty, reactionary, and cavalier manner. (Please don't ding my site G, nothing personal)
- smiler 16y agoThe techcrunch piece is nothing more than some filler around the Google blog post. I don't think it's offering any extra insight.